Barriers and Challenges of Implementing Tobacco Control Policies in Hospitals: Applying the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework to the Catalan Network of Smoke-Free Hospitals
Institut Català d'Oncologia, IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain. Policy Politics & Nursing Practice
11/2009; 10(3):224-32. DOI: 10.1177/1527154409346736
This article analyzes tobacco control policies in hospitals based on the experience of the Catalan Network of Smoke-Free Hospitals, Spain. The objective is to understand through this case study how tobacco policies are designed and implemented in health care organizations. Because tobacco control is a public health issue, governmental, institutional, and professional involvement is necessary. This article identifies and examines the structure and relationships among the different actors involved in the tobacco control policies in health care organizations using Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development framework.This theory helps one understand the policy failures and rethink the future challenges. Critical issues should be reviewed to enhance implementation of smoke-free hospitals-such as assuring the compliance of nonsmoking areas and introducing compulsory tobacco cessation activities that are promoted and monitored by the public administration. The author suggests that relying primarily on an organization's interpretation of rules leads to irregular implementation.
Available from: publications.lib.chalmers.se
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite potential benefits of tobacco-free campus policies, compliance remains a challenge. Observational measures hold the most promise in determining compliance with these policies. There is need for further study to determine validity of observational measures of compliance with tobacco-free campus policies. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of two observational measures of compliance with a tobacco-free campus policy: direct observation of violators and cigarette butts. Data collection took place over a 1-year time period. Direct observation was operationally defined as the number of observed violators in hot spots. A cigarette butt protocol previously found to be reliable was used to count the number of butts in campus hot spots. Results indicated a positive relationship between number of violators observed per visit and number of cigarette butts collected. Although most of the hot spots exhibited two or fewer violators per visit and 100 butts or fewer per collection, the data points outside this range supported a positive association between observed violators per visit and cigarette butts. The findings support that direct observation of violators is a valid measure of compliance compared to cigarette butts. Given available resources, using one or the other as evaluation measures is warranted.
© 2014 Society for Public Health Education.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Secondhand smoke exposure is a major public health issue, increasing the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and cancer. Although best practices for adopting smoke-free policy are well understood, there is limited research on the effective implementation of smoke-free policy. This article presents theoretical and practical considerations for smoke-free policy implementation in three Kentucky communities guided by the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework. Although both Danville and Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky have comprehensive smoke-free policies, Danville had more effective implementation, as well as better outcomes. Further study is needed to understand the critical elements of smoke-free policy implementation and their association with population outcomes. The IAD is a promising model to guide the study of both policy adoption and implementation.
© The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.